Jose Manuel Barroso spoke to Irina Novakova of Capital weekly. A reverse translation follows.
Question: Bulgaria has been a member of the European Union for a year now. What are the first things that come to your mind when you hear the name of the country and what memories does it bring to you?
Answer: The first thing that comes to my mind is that this was a success. The critics proved to be wrong – it was worth accepting Bulgaria and Romania on January 1, 2007. If you come to my office you will see two flags on my desk – Bulgaria’s and Romania’s. I put them there at the beginning of the year because I wanted to pay special attention to these two countries. And they were successful – opinion polls show that both Bulgarians and Romanians are generally satisfied with the EU. On the other hand, the whole of Europe benefited from Bulgaria’s contribution to our debates.
Q.: Bulgaria and Romania are subjected to unprecedented scrutiny by the European Commission. Do you see any effect?
A.: The effect of the monitoring mechanism depends on the country itself and not on us. This is not an end in itself but a means of achieving certain results, which we will describe in our January report. This will be an interim report and will not assess every indicator – this shows that we are ready not only to assess but also to help. I think that monitoring is good in that it helps the countries stay focused on their problems. I spoke to the leaders of Bulgaria and Romania. They also see that the mechanism is useful. As a former prime minister I know that such pressure is fruitful – it helps politicians and the administration to focus their efforts where they should. Moreover, it helps society to hold them responsible. The pressure on Bulgaria should not be regarded as something negative – it is a friendly pressure.
Q.: The need for this mechanism shows that Bulgaria and Romania did not join the EU in the most optimal way. What lesson did the community learn from their accession and will the new candidates pay the price by more stringent admission requirements?
A.: We have always said that we assess each country by its own virtues. Therefore I would not like to compare different cases. In Europe each country is individual. But, of course, we always draw on the experience of previous enlargements – not just with Bulgaria and Romania but also earlier. Some member states think that the EU enlarged too much and too fast and this is an opinion we have to accept. Therefore we say to the candidates that they have to make authentic efforts so that we can persuade the EU public opinion to accept them. I personally think that the EU enlargement is the most important geopolitical event at the end of the last century and the beginning of the current one. It did unite Europe but we cannot take this unity for granted. Therefore it is important that we persuade both old and new member states to support us so that we can go on together.
Q.: In a 27-country EU, it is not hard for a young and inexperienced member state as Bulgaria to feel like a rather small wheel in a rather big machine. How can Bulgaria become more than that and make a major contribution to Europe?
A.: Bulgaria is not a small country, it is average in size compared to the other EU members. I think the idea that you are a rather small fish in a rather big sea is an illusion. I hope that Bulgaria and Romania will ask themselves not only how they can benefit from Europe but also what Europe can benefit from them. I think that they are making a good contribution. For example, during the last EU summit the prime ministers of Bulgaria and Romania took an active part in the debates about the future of Kosovo. They did not apologise for their opinion but expressed it as openly as did France, Germany and the UK. And everybody listened carefully because they are best familiar with the region. The way Bulgaria acted to keep the Cyrillic spelling of “euro” is an example of how a country can defend a cause it considers important.
Q.: You backed Bulgaria when it was adamant about the spelling of “euro”. Why did you do that? And do you think that a member state can go to extremes to defend a cause it considers important?
A.: I believe in cultural diversity and take it not as a threat but as wealth. Today all of us speak about globalisation. We in Europe consider ourselves experts in it because in our own union we face growing diversity day after day. So if a country feels strongly for its own culture and language, why not defend it? The EU should respect the various European cultures or else it will drive citizens away. Therefore I backed Bulgaria and I think it reacted adequately.
Q.: What do you think will be the biggest challenges the EU will face next year?
A.: Not just next year, the biggest challenge the EU will face will be to be united. From a global point of view, the external challenges before Europe are so huge that even the biggest member states cannot face them by themselves. To do that we do need a European approach. Size matters as much as you weigh on the global arena. Today we are the largest economic power in the world – together we weigh more than separated. But size is not everything – we need grit as well. The new Lisbon Treaty gives us capacity to act but that is not enough, we also need desire to take action. I hope in 2008 the member states will express greater desire for cooperation and political will to defend the European interests. Furthermore, there will definitely be external developments, which will probably further unite the member countries’ stance. For instance, today Russia is confident, active, and, frankly speaking, a difficult partner. We are interested to work constructively with it but this is hard when we do it separately.
Q.: Talking about international relations, the EU decided to send a mission in Kosovo but there is still the risk of violence or economic sanctions on the part of Serbia if the province declares independence. How will you react if it happens?
A.: I would not like to foresee negative scenarios. I asked the member states for a unified stance on Kosovo. The Americans have a stance, the Russians have a stance. The question is, does the EU have a stance or not? It should, after all Kosovo is in Europe. We do want to integrate the Balkan countries, we do not want to integrate further instability. I think the member states should make an effort to think alike so that Europe can help create peaceful and stable balkans.
Q.: In the last couple of years the media, politics, the civil society have protested that Europe has digressed from its scenario, the Europeans no longer know why they need the EU and what it does for them. What is the story Europe wants to tell its citizens today?
A.: I do not agree with this opinion – it carries the nostalgia of the old people who have always believed that the new generations are worse, that they do not know what they are doing. Some people still think that the European community was much better off when it had only six member states after the end of World War II. They cannot see how much more successful Europe is today. Now we have 27 free and democratic countries. You do not want me to be pessimistic, do you? Don’t you think we are better off today than 20 years ago when the Iron Curtain divided Europe in two? Or 30 years ago when my country, Portugal, was far away from democracy? Today Europe is much, much better off than before – in a political, economic, social and cultural aspect. Therefore those Ancient Greek Cassandras who say that Europe has lost its scenario have themselves lost connection with reality. Of course, I am aware that problems do exist, but I cannot agree with this criticism. I would not exchange the problems we have in Europe for the problems of any other place in the world – the abject poverty in Africa or the human rights violations and the environmental problems in Asia, the populism in South America and elsewhere – I would not pay such a price. Therefore I am satisfied with Europe. Do we have to be pessimistic about the future of Europe? I apologise for speaking from a personal point of view but I cannot be pessimistic. Those prophets cannot see beyond their own prejudices. Europe has and will have a scenario - spreading our interests and values across the world.
Q.: The new Lisbon Treaty is expected to give new momentum to the European scenario if it is ratified by the member states, some of them under serious pressure of their citizens to hold referendums. What is your opinion on this issue?
A.: The member states make their own decisions about the way of ratifying the Treaty and we cannot interfere. From a democratic point of view, both referendums and parliamentary ratification are a good option. I do not share the opinion that the ratification of the national parliament is not democratic. Those who say so do not respect parliament and therefore do not respect democracy. Parliamentary democracy is the best designed system and therefore it is just as legitimate as direct referendum.
Personal profile
Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is President of the European Commission and former prime minister of Portugal. His political career began in 1980 when he joined the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD), whose chairman he became in 1999. In April 2002, he was elected Prime Minister of Portugal. Two years later he abandoned national politics to head the European Commission. The greatest challenge Barroso faced at his current position was the failure of the European constitution in 2005. Among his achievements are the compromise over the new Lisbon Treaty, the negotiations about a single EU stance on the fight against climate change and the widest EU enlargement. Barroso’s successful initiatives make him an eligible candidate for a second term in 2009. He himself does not deny this ambition.
28/12/07-04/01/08, P54-55
Search for: see |
Search for: balkans |
Search for: share |
Search for: profile |
Search for: exchange |
Search for: report |
Search for: event |
Search for: Bulgaria |
Search for: Romania |
Search for: Serbia |
